Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

kickycan wrote:

Do you disagree?

It depends on the alternative. If the alternative is funding from state government, it doesn't make a difference. If the alternative is corporate funding, results will tend to end up as patents rather than publications. I wouldn't expect a large impact on the development of therapies though. So my answer to your question is yes, kind of: I disagree in a bigger part than I agree.

kickycan wrote:

This is what I'm talking about. These irrational faith-based objections muddy up the water so that other, possibly rational and well-thought out issues can be brought up and debated with logic and reason.

As I said earlier, all principles of political ethics are based on irrational premises. There is no rational basis for believing in such a thing as a social contract, or social justice, or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". Therefore, while I am not a Christian, my problem with Christian morality is not that it is irrational.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Maybe Anon hasn't studied up much on this.

Perhaps you two might read together.

Anon

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

I don't mean to be a **** or anything, I just think you may want to look into it a bit.

Looks like echi is right. You haven't studied up much on this.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

There is no rational basis for believing in such a thing as a social contract, or social justice, or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". Therefore, while I am not a Christian, my problem with Christian morality is not that it is irrational.

Interesting. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Let's go with social justice. What is the irrational basis of the concept of social justice, in your opinion?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
I don't mean to be a **** or anything, I just think you may want to look into it a bit.

Looks like echi is right. You haven't studied up much on this.

OK, OK! Tell me what your issue is (other than social and moral hangups you may have), and I'll do your homework and handfeed you a link! I had the impression you were a smart guy. Sorry, my mistake!!

Anon

0 Replies

Here are a few instances of reported adult stem cell treatments that are successful

Quote:

Blood from the placenta and umbilical cord that are left over after birth is one source of adult stem cells. Since 1988 these cord blood stem cells have been used to treat Gunther's disease, Hunter syndrome, Hurler syndrome, Acute lymphocytic leukemia and many more problems occurring mostly in children.

Quote:

For over 30 years, bone marrow (adult) stem cells have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Quote:

Research injecting neural (adult) stem cells into the brains of rats can be very successful in treating cancerous tumors. With traditional techniques brain cancer is almost impossible to treat because it spreads so rapidly. Researchers at the Harvard Medical School injected adult stem cells genetically engineered to convert a separately injected non-toxic substance into a cancer-killing agent. Within days the adult stem cells had migrated into the cancerous area and the injected substance was able to reduce tumor mass by 80 percent.

Quote:

A team of Korean researchers reported on November 25, 2004, that they had transplanted multipotent adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood to a patient suffering from a spinal cord injury and she can now walk on her own, without difficulty. The patient had not even been able stand up for the last 19 years. The team was co-headed by researchers at Chosun University, Seoul National University and the Seoul Cord Blood Bank (SCB)

Quote:

Researchers at Columbia-Presbyterian found that injecting bone-marrow stem cells, a form of adult stem cells, into mice which had had heart attacks induced resulted in an improvement of 33 percent in the functioning of the heart. The damaged tissue had regrown by 68 percent.

Quote:

Using the patient's own bone marrow derived stem cells, Dr. Amit Patel at the University of Pittsburgh, McGowan Institute of Regenerative Medicine has shown a dramatic increase in ejection fraction for patients with congestive heart failure.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Here are a few instances of reported adult stem cell treatments that are successful

Has anypne questioned any of these advances??

Anon

0 Replies

Hi Anon,

The point was discussed a bit earlier that the differences between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research were often IMO intentionally ignored by those who want to accuse pro-life folks of being against ALL stem cell research (untrue) or those who want funding for embryonic stem cell research by riding on the coattails of successful adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cell research has a long track record of successes and it does not require the destruction of a living human being.

For those who doubt that an embryo with 150 cells is a living human being, I ask, how many cells does it require to be a living human being?

Think about it . And when you have your number, then subtract 1. Is he no longer human if he is below your imaginary boundary? Ok subtract 2. Is he still human? Subtract 3......................You get the idea.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

OK, OK! Tell me what your issue is (other than social and moral hangups you may have), and I'll do your homework and handfeed you a link!

I have a better idea. You tell me what your issue was when you took exception with the following post of mine.

Thomas wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
To answer your question more directly, I can guarantee you nothing. I can't guarantee you success, I can't guarantee you unlimited availability. Does that mean that we don't use the 450,000 we have freezing to death, literally! Does that mean we do nothing because we may not have supply that means demand? I'm not sure why you ask the question in reality, because it seems to me like a slam dunk that we use what we can for the people that are here now.

I am asking the question because I'm not buying the argument that 'they're just leftovers anyway'. If therapeutic cloning becomes a success, it will generate serious pressure to create new embryos specifically for the purpose of cloning -- and many people have a problem with that. Also, while I can see that the already-created embryos are useful for research, I don't see how they would be "used for the people that are here and now". To use stem cells for growing new organs, don't you need cells that are genetically identical to the body they're supposed to be implanted in? If so, the existing embryos would be of no practical therapeutic use.

You are the one who responded to this post by suggesting that I do my homework, so it's your job to substantiate that I didn't. So far, you have given me no reason to take your allegations seriously.

0 Replies

First of all, let's dispense with this ridiculous bit.

real life wrote:

For those who doubt that an embryo with 150 cells is a living human being, I ask, how many cells does it require to be a living human being?

First of all, thanks for making my point. If not for god, you would never bring up such an inane argument like this. Your religious belief is impeding your ability to think rationally, and therefore is a roadblock to the kind of real ethical debate that might be able to take place on this issue otherwise.

Oh, and to answer your question, here's a simple test. If you can squash the f*cking thing into nothingness using less than your thumb, it's not a living human being. I know this because it says so in my bible.

real life wrote:

The point was discussed a bit earlier that the differences between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research were often IMO intentionally ignored by those who want to accuse pro-life folks of being against ALL stem cell research (untrue) or those who want funding for embryonic stem cell research by riding on the coattails of successful adult stem cell research.

And the reason you keep bringing up adult stem cell research is not totally based on the fact that you believe, on an irrational religious basis, that they are, in fact, a living human being?

I could care less how much more successful adult stem cell research has been thus far. The point is that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to be even more valuable, but because of all the white noise coming from the religious world, there can't even be a real reasoned debate about the ethics of it.

That is my point, which you have so nicely helped me clarify. Thanks.

0 Replies

I've witnessed one case of stem cell treatment that was successful.

In 1999 I worked with a guy that had been blind for several years as the result of a car accident. His doctor wanted to try a controversial operation which involved removing stem cells from an aborted fetus and implant them into the nerves behind his eye. I'm not a physician so I can't give you the medical explanation of the procedure, but that's basically what was involved.

Since the operation is illegal in the US, both the doctor and patient flew to Russia to preform the operation. He came back to work a couple of weeks later, having eye patches over his eyes for a month. Gradually his eyesight went from total blackness, to vision well enough to drive a car.

So this is a case that I've seen first hand where it has worked!

I say, this fetus was aborted anyway. you may as well put it to good use. Babies aren't going to be aborted just for the sake of medical research. Instead of throwing these fetuses into the trash can, put them to some good use.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Interesting. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Let's go with social justice. What is the irrational basis of the concept of social justice, in your opinion?

The basis is a belief that everyone deserves an equal chance of leading a prosperous, productive, and civilized life. This belief underlies legislation like the homestead act, which gave everyone a right to work a plot of land, then keep it pretty much for the asking. Public schooling, the Civil Rights Acts since the 1860s, as well as other government initiatives, have also been grounded in this belief.

As it happens, I share that belief for the most part. Nevertheless, entire societies of civilized people have chosen not to share it. In fact, from Plato to Louis XIV, most influential schools of thought rejected this belief. Given this, my claim is that you cannot decide whether people have equal rights on the basis of reason alone. You either believe your position on this issues viscerally, or you don't believe it at all. On both sides of the issue, you have nothing but faith to go on whether you decide if slaves deserve rights equal to free men, or if unpropertied men deserve rights equal to propertied men, or if women deserve rights equal to men, or if children deserve rights equal to grown-ups.

Therefore I assert that it reveals a double standard to say that there is no rational basis for ascribing personhood to embryos, but there is one for the concept of social justice.

0 Replies

Here we go again religion Vs humanity and the relief of suffering. And damn it religion the mental affliction is winning.
Regarding the success or failures of this research. I would point out that in any research failures are part of the process. If at the first sign of failure research was terminated. We would still be living in caves.
In reading through the responses I noticed a response that talked about over population of the world if disease can be conquered. The first thought that popped into my head was the stories I have heard that the Eskimos used to put the old and feeble on Ice flows and have them float out to sea {True or not I do not know}
In my opinion it is a crime against humanity to impede the pursuit of any avenue of research that presents the possibility of reducing or eliminating human suffering.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

First of all, let's dispense with this ridiculous bit.

real life wrote:
For those who doubt that an embryo with 150 cells is a living human being, I ask, how many cells does it require to be a living human being?

First of all, thanks for making my point. If not for god, you would never bring up such an inane argument like this. Your religious belief is impeding your ability to think rationally, and therefore is a roadblock to the kind of real ethical debate that might be able to take place on this issue otherwise.

Oh, and to answer your question, here's a simple test. If you can squash the f*cking thing into nothingness using less than your thumb, it's not a living human being. I know this because it says so in my bible.

Nice dodge. So how many cells DOES it require to be a living human being?

kickycan wrote:

real life wrote:
The point was discussed a bit earlier that the differences between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research were often IMO intentionally ignored by those who want to accuse pro-life folks of being against ALL stem cell research (untrue) or those who want funding for embryonic stem cell research by riding on the coattails of successful adult stem cell research.

And the reason you keep bringing up adult stem cell research is not totally based on the fact that you believe, on an irrational religious basis, that they are, in fact, a living human being?

I could care less how much more successful adult stem cell research has been thus far. The point is that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to be even more valuable[/u], but because of all the white noise coming from the religious world, there can't even be a real reasoned debate about the ethics of it.

That is my point, which you have so nicely helped me clarify. Thanks.

(emphasis mine)

Again you hype your product but provide no proof. I hope you don't try to make a living in the sales profession.

And yeah, it is being debated. You just don't like the results of the debate. Unless your opposition rolls over and plays dead, you kick and scream and shout 'unfair unfair'.

You want to join the debate? Prove your assertion that embryonic stem cell research has greater potential than adult stem cell research without simply parroting someone else's assertion that it is so.

You want to join the debate? Prove your assertion that the embryo is not a living human being by telling us at what point he becomes one. How many cells does it require to achieve the status of 'living human being' in your world, Kickycan?

0 Replies

Stem Cell InformationThe official National Institutes of Health resource for stem cell research

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics

If this does not help google carries all the information regarding stem cells and stem cell research you need to or should know.

Again the only argument against this research is the religious one.

0 Replies

au1929,

Let me ask you a question. Don't you think it is possible that those with religious beliefs just might have other reasons for their feelings on this and other issues?

I am not engaging too much in this conversation because I am not that knowledgeable about it, but I keep reading statements like "......the only argument against this research is the religious one."

There are people against abortion that are not religious at all. There are people against any kind of stem cell research that are not religious at all. There are people that are pro-choice that are religious. There are people that are pro-stem cell research that are religious.

I don't think you can lay the complete argument on the religious.

0 Replies

Quote:

Again the only argument against this research is the religious one.

Not true. I posted earlier on this thread, and I made no proclamation of any religious faith. I am not a religious person.
I think it makes the most sense to consider that human life begins at conception, fertilization. I have seen no evidence that counters this. That human life begins at conception seems to me to be the most scientific analysis.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

kickycan wrote:
First of all, let's dispense with this ridiculous bit.

real life wrote:
For those who doubt that an embryo with 150 cells is a living human being, I ask, how many cells does it require to be a living human being?

First of all, thanks for making my point. If not for god, you would never bring up such an inane argument like this. Your religious belief is impeding your ability to think rationally, and therefore is a roadblock to the kind of real ethical debate that might be able to take place on this issue otherwise.

Oh, and to answer your question, here's a simple test. If you can squash the f*cking thing into nothingness using less than your thumb, it's not a living human being. I know this because it says so in my bible.

Nice dodge. So how many cells DOES it require to be a living human being?

kickycan wrote:
real life wrote:
The point was discussed a bit earlier that the differences between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research were often IMO intentionally ignored by those who want to accuse pro-life folks of being against ALL stem cell research (untrue) or those who want funding for embryonic stem cell research by riding on the coattails of successful adult stem cell research.

And the reason you keep bringing up adult stem cell research is not totally based on the fact that you believe, on an irrational religious basis, that they are, in fact, a living human being?

I could care less how much more successful adult stem cell research has been thus far. The point is that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to be even more valuable[/u], but because of all the white noise coming from the religious world, there can't even be a real reasoned debate about the ethics of it.

That is my point, which you have so nicely helped me clarify. Thanks.
(emphasis mine)

Again you hype your product but provide no proof. I hope you don't try to make a living in the sales profession.

And yeah, it is being debated. You just don't like the results of the debate. Unless your opposition rolls over and plays dead, you kick and scream and shout 'unfair unfair'.

You want to join the debate? Prove your assertion that embryonic stem cell research has greater potential than adult stem cell research without simply parroting someone else's assertion that it is so.

You want to join the debate? Prove your assertion that the embryo is not a living human being by telling us at what point he becomes one. How many cells does it require to achieve the status of 'living human being' in your world, Kickycan?

Again you miss my point.

Faith clouds the issue so that a reasoned debate can't be had.

It doesn't matter much what I think about when a human life becomes a human life. For purposes of this argument, I could care less whether a human life begins at the point of conception, or whether it is at the point of the first heartbeat, or whether it is when the doctor slaps it's gooey little ass in the delivery room. The point is, we should determine this stuff without the mumbo jumbo of religion muddying up the waters.

0 Replies

kickycan,

But aren't your non-religious views just as much a part of your reasoning process as perhaps my religious views are a part of my reasoning process?

0 Replies

Momma Angel\

Were it not for the religious community there would be no controversy regarding stem cell research it would be going on full bore. And possibly the cure or at least relief from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases among others would be in sight.
Can you deny that religion and the religious community is in the forefront of the fight against embryonic stem cell research?

0 Replies

Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know